Posted
by
msmash
on Thursday November 03, 2016 @12:40PM
from the topsy-turvy-world dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report on ThinkProgress: The FBI has launched an internal investigation into one of its own Twitter accounts. The account at issue, @FBIRecordsVault, had been dormant for more than a year. Then on October 30 at 4 a.m., the account released a flood of documents, including one describing Donald Trump's father Fred Trump as a "philanthropist." But it wasn't until two days later, when the account tweeted documents regarding President Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich that the account began to attract significant attention. The account has not been active since that tweet. ThinkProgress has learned that the FBI's Inspection Division will undertake an investigation of the account. Candice Will, Assistant Director for the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, said she was referring the matter to the FBI's Inspection Division for an "investigation." Upon completion of the investigation, the Office of Professional Responsibility will be referred back to the Office of Professional Responsibility for "adjudication."

In a better article I read the other day, it was explained that this account is supposed to tweet things automatically in response to requests for records, but it had not been working for about a year due to some sort of system malfunction. This issue was cleared up with a recent software upgrade, so the tweets began appearing again.

I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton. Nothing "partisan" or "evil" about it: just a script reading a bunch of finished FOIA requests that were probably started a year ago during the leadup to the Democratic primaries.

I thought they already explained this: the Twitter account automatically tweets when a certain number of FOIA requests have been reached for a set of documents. I'm guessing that a bunch of FOIA requests from early in the election season finally went through, so you're getting tweets just now that are all related to Clinton.

Who is the "they" that explained it this way? It's trivially easy to disprove. Just look at the Fred Trump document. it appears to be a 1991 release of data in response to a 1966 FOIA request, containing information covering the years 1962-1988.
The only thing new is "adding" the document to this WWW-based "vault." I'm sure similar metadata could be retrieved form the Clinton documents. This is just a blatant Hatch Act violation.

Reading my own comment, I realized that these releases could still be blamed on ignorance. If an FBI archivist was trying to make his or her own personal voting decision, pulling up the FOIA records from whichever hard-to-access database they live in, and then (in ignorance of the fact that a script would post the info to Twitter) copying them over to this easy-to-access web archive, there might be an excuse. I guess.

Bush White House email controversy : 22 million emails deleted, those recovered not made public

Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?

And when you say "not made public" you mean because they weren't asked to be released to the public, right? They were handed over to the requesting legal bodies, no crimes were found, and the issue dropped...

BTW, The "Bush Secret Server" was a public email server, did not carry classified information, and was used in an effort to COMPLY with federal regulations (The Hatch Act), not to subvert the FOIA act...

Wait, when you say "deleted" what you really mean is "stored on mis-filed backup tapes" - right?

No, at the time (2003) the Bush administration claimed they were 'deleted' and didn't have any backups, it took until 2009 and the Obama white house administration to 'find' them:

"Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congr

"Why has Clinton's email server gotten so much attention? She's running for president."

Yes, the attention is partly because she's running for president.

"lock her up alongside bush as far as I'm concerned"

The point was she hasn't done anything that warrants accusations or criminal charges.

"Drain the swamp"

Trump does what he feels will make him richer. One of the main differences between him and other politicians is that he's willing to lie much more to get what he wants for himself, and he wants a lot, and t

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

So, was classified information improperly stored? Yes.

The laws around this do not require intent, so what does the intent matter in this case? It was gross negligence. As a classification authority, Clinton was required to be able to identify classified information when it is not marked, yet she wasn't even able to identify marked classified information.

Who the f--- asked for FOIA documents on whether Trump's dad was a "philanthropist"? I'm sorry, but this explanation makes virtually no sense - and presumably doesn't to do the FBI either otherwise they wouldn't be investigating it.

Is that what you call it, "controversial"? I'd sure hope that pardoning a convicted criminal at the last possible moment in exchange for a couple of million in "donations" is more than just "controversial". What does Bubba need to do in order for people to finally admit he has no moral compass? Publicly behead someone?

It doesn't really matter what happened 16 years ago. This is a federal agency tweeting out partisan tweets a week before the election. That is a violation of the Hatch Act. If they wanted to make a stink of it, the FBI could have released that information at any time over the past 18 months. But a week before the election is a violation of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch (of which the FBI is part of) of the federal government from engaging in some forms of political activity.

Hence the investigation. Yes, I know it has been said that software was fixed and so things went through, but this begs the question, was info vetted to see what would go out? Or was a decision to fix it (dormant for more than a year) made suddenly in the last little bit? Also heard it said that it takes a critical mass of FOIA requests to process for this to tweet. So did someone suddenly authorize a bunch of FOIA requests to trigger the post?

How so? Taking government employment is a voluntary action (the Hatch Act doesn't cover military personnel), and people can voluntarily give up rights. Furthermore, the section of the Hatch Act at issue here only applies "on the job..."

an employee may not...use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

Other than that, there are rules which prevent personal gain ("may not...receive political contributions") or run for partisan office. Anyo

aking government employment is a voluntary action (the Hatch Act doesn't cover military personnel), and people can voluntarily give up rights.

Some, not all.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by an imaginary being with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, you think that influencing an election (which is a civil right) is somehow included in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (which are natural rights)?

My post was not about the election deba(te|cle), and only pointing out that not all rights are open for signing away - some are considered inalienable. Which ones those are is a different matter entirely.

Something much more nuanced that what you do, apparently. As used, it is not the dictionary definition, as the founders accepted that liberty could be deprived with jail or indentured servitude, life by suicide or execution.

Furthermore, the quote you gave was one of principled belief, not fact.

Let me just add that "unalienable" implies an external force taking rights away, which doesn't apply when someone gives up rights voluntarily. Or do you think that an employer can't demand that you actually do work for them instead of exercising a right to "liberty?"

Let me just add that "unalienable" implies an external force taking rights away, which doesn't apply when someone gives up rights voluntarily. Or do you think that an employer can't demand that you actually do work for them instead of exercising a right to "liberty?"

No, inalienable means that you cannot give up the right.You cannot sell yourself into slavery, for example. Your right to not be enslaved is inalienable.

inalienable (adjective)Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Some things are shut down because there's a forthcoming election. Government announcements concerning the candidates should be postponed, for example.

Also, you're suggesting that the rules weren't politically biased, and therefore the system isn't. Automated processes, particularly involving complicated systems, don't always work the way one would expect from the programming. It's easier to examine what's happening and determine if there's bias that way.

If you'll give me evidence that the bulk of voters consider new evidence dispassionately and on its merits, I might agree with you. Comey made a vague announcement that gave Trump a boost in the polls, despite the fact that what he was looking at had nothing useful for the Clinton investigation.

It doesn't matter that he sold pardons? You don't want us to know what kind of people we're voting for, because it might make us vote against corruption? Glad to know where you stand on this, CTR.

It's an automatic Twitter feed. The Hatch Act is to outlaw people using their authority to influence an election, not to prevent the FBI from doing their job. The reason there's more activity now is that you no longer need to go clear to the top, or inform them, when releasing FOIA materials. And people are no

It's apparently not that automatic if it's quiet for years, and then starts spitting out tweets oddly relevant to the election.

Also, with regards to your first point, yeah, we do want to know what kind of people we're voting for. But Bill Clinton is someone we voted for (past tense), he's not running in this election. And Trump's father isn't running either.

Do you really think "Trump's father is awesome!" (BTW, no, he was a racist shithead) "Clinton's husband was controversial!" (Uh, whatever) adds any

Don't forget Trump University, his whole birther movement, the Trump foundation self-dealing and his multiple failed businesses where he deducted the loss of other people's money. Then there's all the wild conspiracy theories he kept putting out, like about Ted Cruz's father.

"The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an electionâ(TM)s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations."

Clinton's campaign made great hay with this particular October Surprise. That was the election where Clinton displaced Bush, denying him a second term and giving us the FIRST Clinton Presidency.

Ross Perot pulled down more than three times the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton was 7% short of a popular-vote majority.

Any bets on whether at least a third of Perot's votes, or at least enough of those (plus conservative voters who just didn't vote for president) to flip a few states and their electoral votes, were people who would have voted for Bush but were disgusted by this and voting for Perot as a protest?

That's some opinionated statements lacking facts on the current hillary email scandal.

Of course Bush was in the know, he was director of the CIA before he was VP. There's no way he didn't know. But that and the DUI (if true, I know W had one) were completely irrelevant to Clinton winning the 92 election. You can lay the cause of the win directly at the feet of Perot with 19% of the popular vote.

1. Electronic voting, all those open Wifi connections, and crap Windows 95 based terminals with exposed USB ports. Do you really want Putin to choose the next president?2. Encryption, NSA allowed zero day exploits to go unpatched, and there has been an undermining of encryption. This has made USA less secure and it needs to be fixed. Quit talking shit about Syrian terrorists blowing up babies and start considering all those REAL political, business and industrial secrets that have been exposed to nasty foreign powers and their puppet agents.3. Baltic states in particular have online voting and a large Russian population among which agents could be hidden. That's very very foolish. They need to look at the soldiers Russian planted in Ukraine to shit stir and realize their online voting is a liability, not an embrace of modern technology. It would be trivial to rig an election in Latvia the way its rigged in Russia.

If you're trying to rig an election at the voting booth, you're doing it wrong.

(As Black Box voting [slashdot.org] points out) rigging it at the central server is more effective. But rigging the voting machines mean that it's harder to determine (in jurisdictions where this test is possible) by comparing the counts posted at the precincts to the totals posted centrally.

Of course attack-in-depth gives a cheating organization more opportunities to make an election come out "correctly". For instance: Motor-Voter (mail-in

Looks like the FBI has disclosed that not only was Clinton's email server almost certainly hacked, but the hacking got so blatant that even Clinton's own part-time staff who did the incompetent setup of a Microsoft Exchange server were able to figure out that something was going on and shut it down temporarily while she was still using it.

Actually, the FBI docs say they have evidence that Clinton's server was hacked, but this is easy to confuse because Podesta fell for a spear phishing email to his gmail account, which led to it being compromised. We do, in fact, have the exact phishing email in one of the most recent dumps. You can see a fake bit.ly reset link in it.

But then wouldn't that make it Podesta's email that had been hacked, and not the server itself? There's a pretty big difference between owning a server and owning a single (or even multiple) email addresses which access the server via POP/IMAP.

The Hatch Act is a ban on using one's office for partisan gain. It doesn't require the FBI to shut down active criminal investigations just because the Democratic party happened to nominate someone under investigation.